I get it — it can be frustrating to encounter so much low effort AI content these days. But I think it’s worth looking at the bright side here: the increase in our production of entropy from GPU consumption will hasten the heat death of the universe.

Would you like me to suggest some AI summarizer tools you could use to more efficiently read AI generated content in the meantime?

Why don't we train LLMs on the entire internet every day? Then we don't even need to read anything. Reading is something people did in 2025

Nice try, but you em-dashed like a filthy human. The drone has been dispatched.

the drone that gives hugs, right??? right????

Let me think about that...

Yes. Resistance puts the possibility of hugs on the stool, so to speak.

You're absolutely right!

> I get it —

well done

This is incredibly normal language and quite close to how I would write this quote, so what makes you think this is LLM text?

I've had the same thought pretty often, lately.

I get it... I'm not a good writer. It just sucks that now people are going to assume the stuff I said isn't even me.

I guess I always scored pretty low on the Turing test and never even knew it.

It’s the fake drama. Punchy sentences. Contrast. And then? A banal payoff.

Human journalists and marketing copy writers have been writing like this for at least 50 years, if not considerably longer.

I am exhausted by so many people calling writing out as AI without sufficient proof other than writing style. Some things are more obvious, sure... maybe I'm just too stupid to see a lot of the rest of it? But so much of what gets called out seems incredibly familiar to me compared with traditional print media I've been reading my entire life.

I'm starting to wonder if a lot of people just have poor literacy skills and are knee-jerk labeling anything that looks well written as AI.

You're right that (some) marketing copy writers have been writing in this style for decades, but suddenly every second tech blogger has assumed the same voice in the past 2 years. Not everyone is as sensitive to it. I read this crap daily so I've developed an awareness and I'm confident in calling it out.

I don't think I've personally seen a single false positive on HN. If anything, too much slop goes through uncontested.

> If anything, too much slop goes through uncontested.

It's actually insane opening up /r/webdev and similar subreddits and seeing dozens of AI authored posts with 50+ comments and maybe a single person calling it out. Makes me feel crazy. It's not as much of a problem here, but there is absolutely a writing style that suddenly 50% of submissions are using. It's always to promote something and watching people fall for it over and over again is upsetting.

I think one factor is the lack of variation. Sure, a copywriter might use those techniques as a hook, but there’s far more content using them paragraph after paragraph after paragraph than I’ve ever seen before.

You might also reframe how you read those comments. Perhaps when people are labeling a piece as “written by AI,” they’re just conveying that they perceive it to use the same “voice” that LLMs use, and judge that voice negatively. Sometimes people say things non-literally and don’t need proof.

You're absolutely right.

It’s 100% LLM text. HN really needs a button “flag as slop”.

It might be normal language but lets say maybe 5% of real human blog writers use short punchy phrases like that. The noticeable problem is now its 50% of blog posts because almost every single AI authored post uses the same phrasing, it's tiring knowing you are just reading ChatGPT output. Its usually part of a low-effort funnel to guide you to some product/service.

Is it actually stylistically close to how you'd write it? If I reformulate your comment in slop style I'd do something like:

The language is natural. Normal. Human. Who could question its authenticity?

The original example isn't the worst offender, but even small offenders stick out when you can't escape seeing this kind of thing everywhere.

The other replies have explained what's jumping out but I'd agree that without the other surrounding sentences of the article's introduction I'd be inclined to think that quoted sentence by itself might be human. The full text, however, doubles down on the AI-smelling constructions and IMHO almost certainly indicates some AI provenance.

Reading (and even more so, using the tools to produce) a bunch of LLM-output writing also affects one’s writing style. Ever sat down and blown through 3-4 books by a favorite author, then written something and found yourself using similar structure, word choice, style…? This could very well be a human author that’s been exposed to a lot of LLM output (ie 95% of this site’s audience).

I find myself doing this a lot, and I’m sure even more slips without my notice.

> It's all so tiring.

What's tiring is a comment like this. If you don't like the article don't read it -- and don't comment.

One cannot make an accurate assessment of liking or disliking an article without having read the article.

The OP's complaint is literally about a one-sentence paragraph, the second in the article. Plenty of warning to avoid the rest and move on, but LLM shaming is it's own reward perhaps?

I agree that that line reads GPT-like, but it's far from a conclusive tell. One option that I wonder about is if frequent interaction with AI will begin to influence people's organic writing style.

Who cares if it’s LLM written or assisted writing?

What matters is the content!

How is that quote in any way demonstrative of this being written by LLM? You do know that LLMs were trained on the internet and every digitized text they could get their hands on? You are jumping at shadows, calm down already.

How can you tell?

LLMs didn't invent the "Rule of Three".

what makes you think that? and what sets your comment appart from beeing created by an llm?

Ehh… this quote alone is pretty benign. If you didn’t mention it, I wouldn’t have even considered the possibility of AI.

That's the intention. Make the internet so unbelievably shit that you just accept and move on.

Nothing in this sentence is evidence of AI.

What's next? "There's punctuation in the sentence, must be AI" ?

I don’t like AI slop as much as the next guy, but that part doesn’t seem so bad? Sounds like something anyone could write.